tv U.S. House of Representatives Morning Hour CSPAN July 7, 2016 10:00am-12:01pm EDT
what i did not want to hear, because it sounded she is so guilty. host: i have to leave your comments at that, because we have to go to the house floor. the house is coming in here for their legislative session. go to c-span3 for the fbi hearing. live coverage of the house here on c-span. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] lays before the house a communication from the speaker. the clerk: the speaker's room, washington, d.c., july 7, 2016. i hereby appoint the honorable daniel webster to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, paul d. ryan, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the order of the house of january 5, 2016, the chair will now recognize members from lists submitted by the majority and minority leaders for morning hour ebate. the chair will alternate recognition between the parties with each party limited to one hour and each member other than the majority and minority leaders and the minority whip , but in o five minutes
no event shall the debate continue beyond 11:50 a.m. the chair recognizes the gentleman from illinois, mr. gutierrez, for five minutes. -- gutierrez: the speaker pro tempore: mr. quigley, then, from the same state. five minutes. mr. quigley: thank you, mr. speaker. when it comes to climate change the data is in. sea levels are rising, oceans are becoming more acidic. what's more, the intergovernmental panel on climate change is 95% certain that humans are causing the current climate change trends. to sit here and deny the science simply because the it inconveniences us does nothing but cause greater harm for our planet and future generation. each day that passes without action on climate change is another day we're wreaking havoc on our world.
i think president obama stated it best when he said, if anyone wants to dispute the climate change, have at it. you will be debating our military, most of our america's business leaders, the majority of the american people, almost the entire scientific community and 200 nations around the world who agree it's a problem and intend to solve it. it's hard to believe some of my colleagues are so determined to deny climate inc. science they're willing to sacrifice the health and safety of americans. nowhere is the sacrifice more evident than in our waterways. we use water from everything, from bathing, drinking, recreation, crops. but climate change is creating profound changes to this precious commodity, threatening water availability, access and quality. many areas of the united states, especially in the west, currently face devastating water supply issues. the amount of water available in these areas is already limited and our demand will continue to rise as population
grows. one of the greatest examples of this is the colorado river system, a major source of water supply for the southwest. in recent decades, water flow through this important river system has been lighter than expected, giving annual rain and snowfall rates. not surprisingly, studies show rising temperatures and climate change are the cause of this increased water flow. as greenhouse gas pollution continues to pile up, it traps more heat. continually raising global temperatures and parches the colorado river watershed. researchers expect for every degree of celsius of global warming, the amount of water that gets evaporated and sucked up by plants in the colorado river could increase by 2% or 3%. with 4.5 million acres of farmland irgaited using the colorado river water and with nearly 40 million residents depending on it, the incremental losses that are predicted will have a
devastating impact. and as the west continues to experience less rain and an increase in the severity and length of droughts, greater impacts on drinking water supplies are projected. unfortunately, it's not just the western u.s. that is in danger. in my own region, the great lakes are under threat as they are warming at rates faster than the world's oceans. it's expected the great lakes region will grow warmer and probably drier during the 21st century with temperatures in the region warming anywhere from five degrees to 12 degrees fahrenheit. the impact climate change has on the five lakes will have serious implications for aquatic life as well as high economic costs for our communities. several different climate models for the great lakes region all predict lake levels will decline over the next century. within another 30 years, lake superior may be mostly ice-free in a typical winter and is already increasing increased water temperatures. lake erie water levels already
below average could drop four to five feet by the end of this century, significantly altering shoreline habitat. we are at the tipping point, and instead of addressing the root of the issue, climate change, my colleagues continue to deny the science. our waterways are our national treasures. they several semb as the backbone for our health, economy, ecosystems and recreation. we cannot simply stand by while the course of the world is altered. the science is clear. the data is pointing us in one direction, now is the time to act on climate change. we are not given a planet with unlimited resources. it's our job to protect the waters and the people that rely on it and that begins with finding real solutions to our climate crisis. thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from north carolina, mr. jones, for five minutes. mr. jones: mr. speaker, i'm on
the floor again today with a prophetic political cartoon. in artoon is uncle sam is a wheelchair and he's at the edge of a cliff known as a fiscal cliff and then he's got president obama pushing him in the wheelchair and then the donkey, representing the democratic party, is pushing mr. obama, and then the elephant, representing the republican party, is pushing the donkey and president obama to push uncle sam off the cliff. what is ironic is that uncle sam is yelling like he's excited, i can see greece from here. we know what's happened to the economy of greece. it's in total collapse. mr. speaker, we are $19.2 trillion in debt. i was here in the year 2000 when bill clinton left office. we were the majority in the house and the senate. we were headed for a surplus.
the debt in 2000 was $5.6 trillion. now we are 16 years later and it's $19.2 trillion. the reason i bring this up because we have an opportunity to stop spending billions and billions of dollars in afghanistan. it is nothing but a waste. it's a waste of our young men and women in uniform. it's a waste of the taxpayers' money. recently, the former leader of afghanistan, karzai, was quoted in "the washington post," and i quote, military action cannot resolve conflict in afghanistan. the former president of afghanistan, karzai, told "the washington post" recently that he doesn't think a military effort will bring peace to afghanistan. he said, and i quote, we did it for the last 14 years and it
didn't bring us that, so how do we know military action will bring us that now? we are going on 15 years of being in that country, and the waste, fraud and abuse in afghanistan is worse now than it's ever been. i think about the needs of our veterans. i think about the needs of our children. i think about the needs of our senior citizens, and so many needs. we passed a bill yesterday to help with the mental health issues of america. yet, it's not funded. yes, we'll find the money to fund afghanistan so we can continue to waste and spend the taxpayers' money and get nothing for it. it is just absolutely ridiculous. mr. speaker, i voted against the department of defense bill last week simply because there's another $43 billion in there going to afghanistan.
this is o.c.o. funds, it's slush funds. it can't even be accounted for. the taxpayers are frustrated with both parties and fed up because we're not doing our job. we're not doing what is necessary. we ought to be debating afghanistan on the floor of the house. we ought to be saying, is it worth it or is it not worth it and have an up or down vote. no, we just let it continue to go down this road with no end to it. mr. speaker, i close this way because to me this tells you more about afghanistan than anything i could say today. afghanistan is known as the grave yard of empires. well, i know one empire that's headed for the graveyard and it happens to be the united states of america. we continue to fund and waste the taxpayers' money in afghanistan, then i hope that graveyard will have a headstone, and it will one day that says, u.s.a., because we
will be in the graveyard of afghanistan and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from north carolina, mr. price, for five minutes. mr. price: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. price: mr. speaker, i rise today as a vice chair of the house gun violence task force and in solidarity with the majority of americans who are demanding that congress take meaningful action to prevent gun violence. we all know the statistics. whether it's through mass shootings that make the headlines or the unseen violence that happens every day on our streets, gun violence takes the lives of more than 30,000 of our nation's citizens each year, a number that far exceeds other industrial countries. now, all these countries have their share of violent extremists and madmen, but only
our country gives easy access to weapons of mass killing and that makes all the difference for america. rather than seeking out commonsense solutions to address this crisis, the republican majority continues to cower to the gun lobby and the manufacturers. now, they plea the second amendment, but constitutional law 101 would tell us all of our rights, including precious freedoms of religion and speech, must be balanced to protect innocent third parties and to protect the safety of the wider community. one commonsense measure we should all agree on is background checks to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, domestic abusers and the dangerously mentally ill. you can't shout fire in a crowded theater because of your freedom of speech, and neither should you be able to buy a weapon if you have a history of violence and criminalality.
in fact, almost 90% of americans, including the majority of gun owners, support universal background checks for all gun purchases. the problem is that our present background check system has loopholes. background checks are not required for private sales at gun shows. they are not required for internet sales. bipartisan legislation has been introduced by representative peter king and represent -- representatives peter king and mike thompson that would finally close this egregious loophole. it's an entirely sensible reform that would have a measurable impact on the safety of our schools, homes, neighborhoods without preventing law-abiding citizens pour using guns for self-defense or recreational purposes. but despite attracting 186 co-sponsors, including several republicans, the background check has never been brought to the floor or even received hearing in committee. it's been languishing for more than 15 months. meanwhile, the shootings and the sue sides and the massacres
-- suicides and the massacres continue to accumulate. my colleagues, we must do better. our fellow citizens are totally fed up. both with the unspeakable killing and suffering and with a congress that hasn't historied a finger to prevent it. -- hasn't lifted a finger to prevent it. after a historic protest on the house floor, republicans seemed to be willing to hold a vote on legislation that they claim would prevent terrorists from getting firearms. after all, nearly 2,500 individuals on the terror watch list have successfully purchased weapons in this country. but rather than embrace existing bipartisan legislation to actually fix the problem, republicans put forth a woefully inadequate proposal that would require law enforcement and courts to grapple with unworkable processes, unworkable standards and completed in an
unreasonably short period of time it would allow suspected terrorists to receive firearms by default after only three days if the court is unable to work through a complicated process. that's the same flaw that allowed the white supremacist charleston shooter to obtain the weapon that he used to murder nine people at emanuel a.m.e. church. in other words, the bill's totally inadequate and now under pressure from their most extreme members, republican leaders refuse to even put this bill on the floor. what should be on the floor is bipartisan legislation, h.r. 1076, that would permit the attorney general to block gun sales to suspected terrorists. this legislation, based on a proposal from the bush justice department, would still allow individuals to challenge the government in court to restore their gun ownership rights. we don't have to choose between protecting our communities and respecting due process. and so, mr. speaker, we ask our
colleagues, how much longer must we wait? how many more people have to die to move us to act? how many more american towns and cities must be added to the list to places like orlando and columbia and columbine and aurora and charleston and newtown? moments of silence aren't enough. thoughts and prayers are not enough. in fact, the scriptures teach grave such piaty give offense when they mask refusal to do what we know is right. we need action. i call on my colleagues to bring these commonsense proposals to the floor for a vote. . the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from alabama, mr. byrne, for five minutes. mr. byrne: i rise today to encourage the ongoing peace
process in colombia. over the past 52 years colombia has witnessed an armed conflict between the government and the revolutionary armed forces of colombia, or park. the -- farc. it has taken a serious toll on the country. 220000 people have been killed and more than 6.8 million people have been forced from their homes of the the fighting has been especially difficult for the rural areas of the country. but a new day is on the horizon for the people of colombia. the country is on the verge of an historic peace agreement with the farc. in fact, the government and the farc signed a cease-fire agreement on june 23. this was seen as one of the few remaining roadblocks to a final peace agreement. with all that is going on in the world today, it would be easy to miss the important progress taking place in colombia. the peace process isn't garnering the media attention that some other foreign affairs are, but is just going to have
just an important impact on global affairs. last year i had the opportunity to travel to colombia with the armed services committee and my colleague from arizona, mr. gallego, whose mother is from colombia. it didn't take long for me to realize that colombia is a beautiful and fascinating country. and i was very impressed with the hospitality of the colombian people. it also became clear during my trip that the majority of colombian people want things to be better in their country, and they are committed to the peace process. mr. speaker, colombia is our closest and strongest ally in latin america. so the peace process is very important not only to colombia but also to the united states. their future opportunities are also ours. colombia has a growing economy with immense potential base on their abundant natural resources and a culture of very hard work. a more stable colombia will allow the country to further
expand their economy which would be a benefit to us right here at home. at a time when there's so many foreign policy challenges around the globe, colombia is a rare success story. the country was literally on the verge of becoming a failed state but now they are a leader in the region. the united states maintains significant bilateral relations and has provided important diplomatic assistance to the colombian government, but we have done so without becoming overly involved in their local affairs. so, mr. speaker, i want to emphasize my strong support for the colombian peace process, and i call on every member of this house to also lend their support to that process. we need to encourage our neighbors in south america. i want to commend president santos for his leadership and his commitment to a lasting peace. i also want to highlight the important work of the ambassador. i appreciate his friendship and applaud his work to strengthen the partnership between the united states and colombia.
ultimately only the people of colombia can reach the lasting peace agreement that restores justice and order to their country. but the united states can and i believe we must stand ready to assist the colombian government as they finalize this process and then as they move their country out of conflict and into a period of stability and lasting peace. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from illinois, mr. gutierrez, or five minutes. mr. gutierrez: mr. speaker, i had planned to talk about something else this morning, but the events of the last 12 hours changed my plans. i watched this morning on tv and online like a lot of americans another of our fellow americans shot down by the police. this time it was in st. paul, minnesota. earlier this week it was in baton rouge. but we know it is everywhere in
chicago, in baltimore, in south carolina, it seems that every week or month another black man is shot by the police and we always have the same reaction. oh, it's a tragedy. there should be an investigation. a lawsuit is filed and another settlement. oh, the justice department and the f.b.i. need to oversee the investigation because we cannot trust the police to police themselves. and then we go back to business as usual and nobody actually does anything. state by state, city by city, and county by county, we might make this reform or that reform, but there is no national strategy to stop police from killing people, especially black people, especially black men. i wept this morning as i watched the another of philando castile describe her son. she said he had a job. he served children in the cafeteria. he was a calm young man. she also said he was not a thug. why does a black woman in 2 isst century in the united states -- 21st century in the united
states of america while a black man sits in the oval office almost 50 years after martin luther king jr. was gunned down, why does she have to start her description of her son with that he was not a thug? she said we're being hunted. mr. speaker, this is another sad chapter in american history. i do not feel compelled to say in describing my grandson, while first and foremost he's not a gangbanger, he's not a thug, but for this black mother and a lot of african-american mothers in this country, that is something they feel a necessaryity to say. -- necessity to say. this mother did everything right. her son was still shot dead by the police. this young man was writing in the passenger -- riding in the passenger seat of a car with his fiance and 4-year-old little daughter in the back seat. he had a permit to carry a weapon which he announced to the police. so he had gone through the background check, gone through the training, and had the concealed carry permit.
but he was shot dead in front of his loved ones, his fiance and daughter. why is it in 21st century america we have to have a conversation about how to be -- how to avoid being shot by the police? why do i have to instruct my grandson about deescalation if he comes in contact with the police? about strategies to prevent a sworn public servant, an officer of the court, a trained member of law enforcement, and i have to instruct my teenage grandson how to prevent that person from shooting him to death for no reason. why, mr. speaker? we have no national strategy, no national conversation. when americans are literally crying out in the streets that, yes, black lives matter, we have no response from the congress, the people's house, none. the head of the f.b.i. announces he won't press charges against a candidate in the democratic party, stop everything. we need to have hearings,
congressional hearings. benghazi, let's spend millions on hearings. political hearings. planned parenthood? let's form a special committee to do what the majority party feels is important from their political point of view. but a young black man is shot by police in his car in cold blood? nothing. young men are shot by police, videotapes are withheld from the public, and nothing happens. mr. speaker, i think black lives matter. i think the lives of young men in inner cities across this country matter. and i think this congress should be the place where america comes together to decide we're going -- what we're going to do about young black men getting shot by the police. not next week, when it's going to happen again. not next month, when it's going to happen again. not waiting safely until after the election, when it happens again, and again, and again. mr. speaker, this congress needs
to come together and lead, and we need to start right now. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentlelady from missouri, mrs. wagner, for five minutes. mrs. wagner: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i rise today in support of the restoring access to medication act. introduced by my good friend and colleague, congresswoman lynn jenkins. mr. speaker, for far too long missouri families have suffered from the never-ending financial burdens and health consequences imposed by the affordable care act. it from limited access to physicians to skyrocketing premiums, obamacare has failed our country and our people. for years, missouri families have used health savings accounts and flexible spending accounts as an important tool to save and help pay their medical expenses, including over-the-counter drugs. in the united states, more than 20 million individuals and
families have taken advantage of h.s.a.'s and f.s.a.'s. they have counted on them to help protect against unexpected health care expenses, and better plan for medical costs throughout the year. under obamacare, the administration did its best to get rid of these h.s.a.'s and f.s.a.'s by limiting the amount of savings people could contribute to them and how that money could be used. they even mandate that funds in h.s.a.'s and f.s.a.'s could not be used to purchase over-the-counter medications without a prescription from a physician. simply put, this administration ded yet another layer of washington knows best take to how to spend your money and how to manage your health care. as a mother of three i remember sick children, cold and flu seasons, and late night runs to the drugstore for cough syrup
and fever reducers. i know that these unexpected expenses directly impact families who are fighting to make ends meet. adding another doctor's visit to just so many that you can use your -- instead of using your already saved money to purchase over-the-counter medications is unfair, it is wrong, and it is down right senseless. the restoring access to medical act will repeal this portion of the law that unfairly targets pocketbooks and reduces access to everyday medications like aspirin and allergy relief. this legislation will put americans back in the driver's seat, restoring control of the family's day-to-day health expenses and needs. mr. speaker, in addition to this legislation increasing access to over-the-counter medications that families need, it allows americans to most importantly increase the amount of money
they contribute to their health savings accounts. while doubling, doubling the amount those individuals and families can contribute to their accounts in 2017, this new law will also, also have a net decrease of $2.2 billion for our federal budget over the fiscal years 2016 through 2026. mr. speaker, i am thrilled that the house has passed this bipartisan commonsense legislation which places the health care needs of families above the liberal interests of bureaucrats in washington. it will save families money and put them further in control of their health care decision. something the ever failing affordable care act will never do. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield bck. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from washington, mr. mcdermott, for five minutes.
mr. mcdermott: i ask unanimous consent to address the house. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. mcdermott: mr. speaker, during my 28 years representing seattle in the congress, there have unfortunately been several mass shootings in my district. including one in 2006 at the jewish community center, and another one in 2014 at seattle pacific university. i know the pain and the frustration of members of the delegation from central florida are feeling three weeks after the shooting in orlando. as a psychiatrist i know and understand the trauma that these types of violent events inflict on individuals and communities. as someone who is around congress in 1994, when the first assault weapons ban was passed,
and in 2004 when it expired without action, i thought it would be useful to talk for a few minutes today about the history of that ban and how congress capitulated to the gun lobby and allowed weapons designed for killing to flood our communities. congress began consideration of assault weapons ban after too mass shootings in california. in january, in 1989, a disturbed man with a long criminal history walked into the cleveland elementary school in stockton, california, and fired 106 rounds in three minutes from his semiautomatic rifle. killing five children and 32 wounded. nothing happened. it's no surprise that we have the same thing happen in connecticut and nothing happens. , a years later in 1993
failed businessman opened fire in the mart-in-law firm in san francisco with a pair of semiautomatic pistols, shooting hollow point ammunition. the predictable public outcry and strong support for assault weapons ban following these shootings led senator dianne feinstein to put forward legislation that would ban semiautomatic weapons. . in an unprecedented show of bipartisan support, former presidents jimmy carter, ronald reagan and gerald ford joined together to publicly urge congress to, quote, listen to the american public and to the law enforcement community and support a ban on the further manufacture of these weapons, closed quote. a ban on assault weapons eventually passed the congress in 1994 as a part of the
violent crimes and law enforcement act. however, in order to get that legislation through the house, a costly concession was made to gun right supporters and the n.r.a. that was allow the ban to sunset or expire after 10 years. so despite the importance of the assault weapon ban, it was allowed to expire. from 2003 through 2008, senator feinstein led numerous efforts to re-authorize the ban but not a single bill left through committee. we had the same here in the house. carolyn mccarthy made the plea over and over again. her husband and her son died on a long island railroad train from a guy that came into the train and shot up the aisle and
killed them. 104 people were gunned down during the time period in mass shootings and all congress did was to send a message that weapons designed for use in the theater of war were acceptable or use on our streets. what i certainly -- ile i certainly don't want to minimize the loss of lives, i want to point out that congrs felt compelled to act on a assault weapons ban in 1994 following two shootgs that killed a combined totalf 13 people. for some rean, this body seems -- can't seem to summon the courage to act after 27 are killed in nnecticut, 24 in san bernardino, ne in oregon, 12 colorado, 4in orlando, and i could go and on and on for my entire speech. the question you have to ask
is, have we become so numbo the pain of mass shoings that no matter how many innocent people are gunned dwn we won't find the will to act? has the n.r.a. desensitized my republican colleagues so much thathe slaughter of children in a kindergarten doesn't even result in a single vote on the floor? what is the price that the american people must pay before republicans quit this obstruction? 100 killed? 200? 50 doesn't seem to hit the threshold. i understand assault weapons ban reinstallation will be tough but, mr. speaker, we must have that debate if we are going to have a society in which we all feel safe. i yield back the balance of my ime.
the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. cab juan -- capuano. mr. capuano: i don't like being here. i had meetings i had to cancel but i'm committed to doing everything i can to get two votes on the floor. just two. simple issues. no fly, no buy and closing the gaping loopholes in background checks for the purchase of the gun. that shouldn't be a problem. i don't know anybody who opposes those items. we can't get a bill on the floor because the republican majority is afraid of their own position. they are scared to let the american people know where they stand on these issues. just yesterday we had to use a legislative gimmick called a motion to recommit, which nobody in america understands.
i didn't understand it before i got here, but it was the only way we could get the issue on the floor and even then when mr. thompson offered it, it was ruled out of order. nd through machinations of runal on rule -- rule on rule on rule, it was rule nongermane and the motion was to lay it on the table. the only vote we got was to overrule the ruling of the republican chair to lay it on the table. the people who voted to lay it on the table yesterday voted to allow terrorists to buy weapons . the people who voted to lay it on the table yesterday voted to allow criminals and terrorists to continue to buy guns under our current gaps in the background check law.
that's what that vote was. now, i know no republican who voted that way will go home and explain it to their constituents. they said, no, it was a procedural motion, and many of them will probably get away with it. that's a shame. what i don't understand is why people who claim this is somehow against due process -- and by the way, the bills that have due process in it written by a republican during a republican presidential administration, there are plenty of due process. if they want to add more we'll add more. no one was concerned about due process when they voted for the patriot act that allowed the n.s.a. to listen to everybody's cell phone conversations. no one was caring about due process when americans grabbed people from around the world and keep them under lock and key for as long as we want. but now we're concerned about it. god forbid we deal with
whatever concerns we have. all we want is a vote. they need to have a vote. if they think those bills are bad, bring them to the floor and vote no and go home and explain it to your constituents. i do it all the time. that's why i came here. i thought that's what we did. we're not supposed to be the people who hide. we're supposed to be leaders. lead. don't cowher in fear behind -- don't cower in fear behind gimmickry because you don't have the courage of your convictions. this issue won't go away. the american people are tired and have been for a long time of politicians who refuse to stand up and be counted for their principles.
we don't mind disagreements. i don't mind losing on an issue here and there. i do mind not being given the opportunity to debate and vote on the important issues of the day, issues that everybody in america wants. mr. speaker, that's why i'm here. we'll debate the merits another time if we're lucky, but it will not go away and you cannot hide from your refusal to allow a vote on these two simple, commonsense proposals. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentlelady from california, ms. speier, for five minutes. ms. speier: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to associate myself with the outstanding comments of my colleague from massachusetts, mr. capuano. i couldn't agree with him more.
i'm proudly a member and co-chair of our task force against gun violence. i proudly support every american's right to own a firearm. i believe as strongly as anyone in this room that all we are trying to do here is get a vote, a simple vote. let the votes fall where they may, but a simple vote on closing loopholes as they relate to background checks and making sure terrorists can't buy guns if they can't even fly. now, over the last many months, i have spent a five minutes talking about all those who died because of mass shootings in this country and i have a wall, a memorial wall outside my office that is filling up quite quickly of all the lives that have been lost because of mass shootings.
durgs our sit-ins on the house floor last week we read the names of the victims in orlando. today i'll remember the 54 other victims last month in 51 other mass shootings that took place in the month of june. even excluding orlando, so many people last month were affected by mass shootings that i don't have time within my five minutes to list those who were injured but survived. here are those who died in mass shootings in june that were not victims in orlando. yvonne burton, 28. shawn point, 27. darius woods, 27 were killed on june 4 in denver, colorado. brian harris, 44 and robert sykes, also 44, were killed when a gunman opened fire in a motel on june 5 in phoenix, arizona. jeremy taylor, 54, and shawn strickland, 26, were killed when a gunman opened fire in a
convenient store on june 7 in cape coral, florida. raquan brown was killed outside is school on june 8 in massachusetts. adrian was killed outside a university apartment complex on june 11 in charlotte, north carolina. stephanie gonzalez, 17, and her sister, kimberly gonzalez, were killed by their mother's ex-boyfriend on june 11 in los angeles, california. the shooter also wounded their mother and brother. cynthia, 34, and her daughters, 14, 11, abby 7, ida 3, were killed by their husband and father on june 11 in roswell, new mexico. an unadent find 30-year-old man was killed on june 11 in stockton, california. regina was killed after she was attending a memorial service in oakland, california.
she had just performed a praise dance honoring two boys who had drown. robert, 54, and jason, 41, were killed outside of a bar on june 18 in warren, ohio. cameron wilkins, 21, felicia williams, 32, were killed in a housing complex on june 18 in waycross, georgia. cameron had seven children. ronald graves, 30, was killed in a house on june 19 in virginia. gary porter, 41, was killed at a party on june 19 in syracuse, new york. he had four children. monty compton, 24, and his cousin, dante jefferson 21, were killed june 21 in louisville, kentucky. gerald, 36, jackson, 28, and teron, 31, were killed in a trailer june 21 in washington. karen leaves behind two daughters, 8 and 12. an unidentified man was killed
june 22 in dekalb county, georgia. karolina, allen were killed on june 24 in district heights, maryland. trayvon lewis, 22, and jordan larkin, 18, were killed at a dance club in fort worth, texas. renaldo was killed outside of a bar on june 26 in atlanta, georgia. an unidentified man was killed near a pool in houston, texas. 26, reyes, 60, edmond, and katie, 30, were killed on june 27 on a blueberry farm in woodburn, oregon. occio, 35, and her children, 15, 14, 9 were killed by their husband and father on june 29 in las vegas, nevada. shanda, 37, was killed while sitting in her can on june 30
in chicago, illinois. it was her birthday and she was going out to celebrate. this carnage must end. just give us a vote on two modest bills to help stem the bloodshed. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. green, for five minutes. mr. green: thank you, mr. speaker. . . speaker, i love my country no one says the pledge of allegiance with greater enthusiasm than i. no one sings "god bless america" with more love for country than i. mr. speaker, i consider it a preeminent privilege to stand in the well of the congress of the united states of america to
address some of the great issues of our time. mr. speaker, the message that i eliver today has been 68 years in the making. the message that i deliver today had its genesis with my i er who cautioned me that must behave a certain way in the presence of the police. . a mother who was concerned for her son, who always made it very clear to me that i had to say yes, sir, and no, sir. and that i had to always accept whatever the police said to me. this message is 68-plus years in the making, mr. speaker. the message is in part based upon what my uncle who was a
deputy sheriff shared with me about my behavior in the presence of the police. , always yieldways to the police, submit to the police, never challenge the police. 68 years in the making, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, my heart is heavy after what has happened over the last two days to black men in the united states of america, my heart is heavy. i had the unfortunate circumstance of seeing what happened to that man in baton rouge, louisiana, on the ground th his hands flailing, blood flowing from his chest.
i heard the young lady this jesus, pleading to god, god don't let him be dead. maybe not her exact words, but very much what she said. don't let him be dead. don't let this happen. mr. speaker, we have to do something about the killing of black men at the hands of the constabulary in this country. if you don't want to investigate the police, if you don't want to investigate the system, the culture that causes it, investigate black men. find out why they want to rupp out in front of bullets. let's find out why they are the ones who are consistently and th some degree of systemic
order forcing themselves upon the police such that they find themselves dead. investigate us. i'm a black man in the united states of america. i have lived what i'm saying. 68 years in the making. that's how long this speech has been made. i don't need a written piece of paper. i know what's going on. was a judge for 26 years. i saw it. i can give firsthand testimony about what's going on. it's time for us to investigate what's happening to black men in this country. black lives do matter. these people are trying to tell us something. these young people. we must listen to them. let us not ignore what's going on. the camera's eye doesn't lie.
if you look at these videos and you use your common sense, you know that there's something going on and we need to investigate t it's pervasive. it's not just one off circumstance that is we're having to contend with. these things are happening across the length and breadth of this country. every venue has some account that can be called to our attention. it's time for us to do something . mr. speaker, i call on you, mr. speaker, you are the speaker of the whole house. mr. speaker, i call on you to assemble the house so that we can address the issue of black men dying at the hands of police in this country. and we ought to investigate it to the extent that we come to conclusions about the people that are involved in these tragedies. we should not have to have
another mother to have her child the car 4 years of age when her boyfriend is killed. mr. speaker, i thank you for the time. and i thank god for giving me 68 years to develop this message. and i pray, mr. speaker, that you will do something about what's happening to black men in this contry. -- country. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from minnesota, mr. paulsen, for five minutes. mr. paulsen: revise and extend. mr. speaker, i rise today just to congratulate the high school girls softball team on their state championship. after finishing the regular season with a record of 17-3, and second place in the west metro conference standings, the third seeded storm went on to win four games straight to win the section 2 championship, and then the section 2 representatives in the state tournament, the storm won over
forest lake, hopkins, and buffalo outscoring their opponents 19-5 on their way to the championship. mr. speaker, its accomplishments such as these that are a testament to the skills and values that all high school athletics teach and these young ladies demonstrated determination and toughness on the field as well as drive and responsibility in the classroom. balancing school work and athletics can be challenging, but these student athletes proved themselves to be both leaders on the diamond and in the classroom. the families, teachers, friends, and entire community are very proud of these young ladies. i congratulate them on their win. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from georgia, mr. johnson, for five minutes. mr. johnson: thank you, mr. speaker. my topic today was going to be , the issue of gun violence mash shootings, the need for
congress to take some action to keep america safe. the fact that 90% of the people of this country want congress to take some action. and i was going to speak about that today, but i would be remiss as a black man in america to pass up the opportunity to comment about life as a black man in america in an urban setting, particularly, when it comes to police community relations. because we live in a gun culture and nowadays everybody has a gun. some folks have a culture of growing up shooting, hunting, nothing wrong with that. take the kids to the gun show, the family on a saturday
afternoon. and at the gun show there is a bunch of unlicensed gun dealers there selling weapons of mass destruction to any and everybody. that's a part of the culture because everybody wants a gun. well, it's time for universal background checks. that's a simple piece of legislation, closing the gun show loophole which is -- that oophole is bigger than the goodyear blimp traveling sideways. that loophole is so big that you could fit the good year blimp through it sideways and it's worth nothing because unlicensed gun dealers can sell guns to any and everybody. any and everybody can purchase a gun over the internet. o background check required. we need to close that gun show
loophole by passing legislation that enforces the notion that there will be universal background checks. i wanted to talk about that today and i still think that's important, but even if we have universal background checks in this country, there's still a problem for black folks who decide to arm themselves. mean we had the case of fhilando can steal -- philando n steal -- castile, pulled over for a busted tail light. he's a working man in the car with his girlfriend and her 4-year-old daughter and he's armed as everyone else in america is, but he's a black man riding in the streets of a city in america. so he must not be allowed to
have that gun or at least if he has one, everybody's in such fear that they develop a trigger finger. when he reaches for his license, then he gets blasted four times and his life is snuffed out. that's what happens to black folks in america. find out that the man has a valid license to carry that firearm. in many states now, due to what the n.r.a. lobby has done, you don't even need a license to carry the firearm. in your car. so the man was acting lawfully. he gets blasted. he's no longer with us. the day before alton sterling got a little hustle going on. he's selling c.d.'s at the store, at the corner store. why shouldn't he be allowed to have a weapon?
he's got a weapon in his pocket. everybody else has got a weapon in their pocket. no, he's a black guy and so we automatically develop a trigger finger when the police approach. take him down hard, two on one, throwing him all across the car. you saw the video. if the man had wanted to shoot, he would have pulled the gun out much quicker than when they threw him across the car and had him on the ground pinned to the ground, and he ends up getting shot in the back and in the chest. this is life in america. this is our culture of gun violence. that this congress has allowed to man fest itself in this way -- manifest itself in this way. we shouldn't have to live like this. nobody should have to live like this. people walking around afraid of what their neighbor's going to do to them because they know
that he's got a mental problem and he should not have a weapon, but he was able to get it over the internet or through the gun show. unlicensed firearm dealers. so weapons have proliferated into our society. we're now at war not with a foreign enemy but with ourselves, with our neighbor. it's not fair to any of us, but i tell you when it -- when coughs, black folks have always gotten pneumonia. nowadays when america coughs, black folks die. and it really has to stop, ladies and gentlemen. this is not the way that we should live. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair recognizes the gentlelady from new york, ms. velazquez.
ms. velazquez: mr. speaker, i rise to call for meaningful action on gun violence. the key word in that sentence is meaningful. the tragedy in orlando serve as a dark wake-up call to all americans across the nation in every major city to every small town, americans are speaking with one voice. enough is enough. the american people are demanding for enough no fly, no buy bill that prevents those on the terror watch list from purchasing firearms. how have republicans responded? they have put together a workable and convoluted bill that will not address the real problem. imagine under this legislation law enforcement must convince
the court within 72 hours that the buyer has committed or will commit an act of terrorism before it could block a gun sale. is this your idea of homeland security? really? if this is how you protect the homeland -- is this how you protect the homeland? mr. speaker, the standard is unreachable and unworkable. now one has to wonder where republicans got such an idea? the answer is as simple as it is sad. the n.r.a. which represents large weapon manufacturers wrote this legislation. we need a real, effective, no fly, no buy bill that stops those on the terror watch list from purchasing firearms.
the republican legislation is simply a give away to the n.r.a. that will hamper law enforcement. we also need a system of effective universal background checks that keeps guns out of the hands of those who would do us harm. once again house republicans are standing in the way. they are preventing consideration of this measure that is supported by 90% of the american people. why? just to keep their friends in the n.r.a. lobby happy with them. why? follow the money. mr. speaker, this is unconscionable. the week after the orlando slaughter, i read on this floor the names of the victims. at that time at a time i said while we will
never forget them, they will inspire us to real change but this is not real change. we do not honor the victims of orlando by passing legislation written by the n.r.a. and gun manufacturing lobbyists. in fact, if anything, this legislation is an insult to the intelligence of the american people. well, i have news for you. the american people see through this, and they are not buying it. i urge my colleagues, do what is right. reject this unworkable n.r.a. bill so we can vote on real meaningful legislation to address gun violence in this country. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentlelady from california, ms. waters, for five minutes. ms. waters: thank you very much, mr. speaker and members.
o weeks ago i joined with my colleagues here in the house of representatives and we took an extraordinary action. we sat in and we rallied and we challenged the republican leadership, and we spoke out about gun violence in a way we had never done before. we said to the leadership, enough is enough. we've got to do something about these mass murders. we have got to do something about these guns. we challenged the leadership because we all know that the gun lobby has too much influence and too much control in this house. we also know that too many of our members will not confront this issue on the opposite side
of the aisle because, as has been said, they are the handmaidens of the n.r.a. and so we gathered, we spoke out and we were talking about two simple bills that we wanted them to vote for. we are trying to educate the american people that those who do not want to go against the gun lobby will have the american citizens believe that we're trying to take away their guns. we are not trying to take away anybody's guns. this is not about the constitution or the second amendment. we simply said we want to bring to the floor two simple pieces of legislation. one is no fly, no buy. what does that mean? it simply means if you are on the list of persons who are prevented from flying because
you are suspected of being a possible person involved in terrorism or something of that sort, you cannot get on an airplane. it's something about your background and what you have done and the connections that you have that will not allow you to place the people on the airplane at risk. and so what we're saying is if you can't fly because you will place fliers at risk, you shouldn't be able to buy a gun. and so that's what no fly, no buy is all about. if you are too dangerous to fly, then you shouldn't be able to go and purchase a gun. that's very simple. the other is universal background checks and that's very simple. we have some background check laws, but still there are people who sell guns out of the back of their car at these gun shows and they have no background checks. they could be murderers.
they could be people involved in serious domestic violence. they could be people who are dangerous. they could be mentally ill, and we're saying we have to have universal background checks. what's controversial about those two bills? but they won't pay attention. they will not take up the bills. as a matter of fact, the leadership is threatening us. they want to charge us with violations of the house rules and take us to the ethics committee and have us sanctioned in some way because they say we have violated the rules. well, i say to them, i won't be intimidated. i am not afraid of them or the ethics committee. and if they want to take us to the ethics committee, come on, let's go, because we're going to stand up for what we believe in and we are not going to be intimidated by being charged with violation of the rules of the house. now, while i'm talking about not being intimidated by anybody, i want to congratulate
and thank mr. green for what he says has been a 68-year journey where he got up in our caucus today and he took this floor in a way that i've not seen any member of congress in the years i have been here take the floor and just bare their hearts and just say what's on their mind of i've never seen a member this house come to tears and beg us to do something about the killing of black men, in particular, that's going on. while we are dealing with gun violence and we're dealing with gun violence to protect everybody, i want to tell you i have been here when we've had the mothers up here from newtown. i went to charleston, south carolina, where the emanuel nine were killed, and i stayed
up all night with people places in flowers in front of the church. i literally went to mr. aguilar and sat with limb when the san bernardino massacre happened. we were here when columbine happened and we all thought we have got to do something, we've done nothing. then, there's orlando, florida, there's aurora, there's virginia tech, on and on and on. we have been fighting to do something about these massacres, and the police should be with us. the police should not complicate our job by doing what is being done. ladies and gentlemen, you have heard about the latest two llings in baton rouge and in minnesota. they are absolutely heartbreaking, and i listened last evening at this woman crying and screaming and saying, god, please don't let him die.
the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. moulton. ms. waters: massacres and the killing of black men, in particular. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. moulton: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to speak for five minutes and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. moulton: mr. speaker, i stand here today as someone who supports the constitution, including the second amendment. i stand here today as someone who believes in protecting our national security. in fact, i risked my life to defend it. and i stand here as someone who supports the will of the american people because that is
my job. in my previous job, i was an infantry officer in the united states marine corps. over the course of four tours in iraq, i used guns every single day to do my job. in fact, guns saved my life. i do not want to take away guns from me or any other law-abiding american citizen, but i do want to make sure that terrorists, criminals, domestic abusers and the dangerously mentally ill do not get guns they shouldn't have. and all we need to do to accomplish that are two simple, commonsense things. background checks for all sales
of guns with no loopholes that criminals and terrorists can exploit and, second, if you're too dangerous to fly, you're too dangerous to buy. these simple, commonsense gun safety measures are supported .y nine out of 10 americans so if we are going to do our job here in congress, if we are going to follow the will of the american people, if we are going to protect our national security and if we are going to continue to uphold the constitution, we should do these things. and the reason that they are so mportant is because of the americans who have been killed by senseless gun violence. mr. speaker, the following is a
osh higby, age 31. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the responsibility under clause 2 of rule 1, to preserve order and decorum as the chair ruled on june 12, 2003, an exhibition involving members trafficking to the well is a breach of this decorum. pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house hour of until the 12:00 today.
two things. it means nonviolence and it ans insistence on the truth, insistence on the truth and in a nonviolent way. in a nonviolent way, john lewis and the members were insisting on the truth, and the truth is that people should not just have a moment of silence to memorialize their death. there should be action taking to protect the american people. it's bipartisan. it's nationally high in the polls, democrats, republicans, gun owners, even n.r.a. members support the two bills we're asking for so, no, i don't think it's dangerous. they don't mind bringing up when they took over the fall and danced weeks on in. you know what they did when they got the majority, they prevented anything like that happening again. i think the room -- so i'm going to take one more question.
reporter: democratic leader reid said yesterday you'd accept $1.1 billion in anti-zika funding if the house tripped on controversial measures. would you provide democratic support for -- ms. pelosi: i didn't hear what he said. what i thought he said is that one thing that the republicans in the house could do right away is to send -- pass and send back and send to the -- send back the bill that the senate passed overwhelmingly in the senate on zika which is $1.1 billion, not paid -- unoffset. and that's what he said. we'll see what they have to say because over four months, no action. we need the $1.9 billion. we had a briefing yesterday. the professional judgment of the scientists is we need the $1.9 billion, but one thing they could do like that, because time is going away, is that we could just send back
the $1.1 billion just the way the senate sent it to us, bipartisan, unoffset and then do more. reporter: would you accept that? ms. pelosi: let's see what they are doing. we have opioid, we have to do zika. we have a lot to do between now and next week. reporter: can you comment on what's happening on the floor right now? ms. pelosi: on the floor of the house right now, democrats are talking about the need for passing bipartisan, commonsense gun safety bills. no fly, no buy. expand -- expanding background check bill to include gun shows and purchases on the internet. the -- so proud of them. they're so committed. up until midnight last night,
actually, mike thompson was talking about this subject and then we're starting first thing this morning. the most eloquent part of it all are the stories and that was what was so dramatic yesterday on the steps of the capitol. i said to them -- the crowd and the members, we're not the talkers here, we're listeners and we're listening to the stories which were so moving and the members are repeating some of the stories on the floor. we urge everyone with a story to send a story. ou can do it to #disarmhate. you can send it to speaker ryan and ask him for the bill. you can send it to your member of congress and ask him or her for a bill. the stories are so compelling. the fact that 91 people a day are killed by gun violence in -- a untry and we still subsidiary of the national rifle association. so sad.
even their members support those two bills so i'm very proud of our members and stay tuned. let me just say this one thing to you. don't tell anybody i told you this. we are not going away. we will persist until we get bills passed to protect the american people. you want a moment of silence, we pray with you. but we also pray that you act upon that moment and the action that has to take the form of passing these two pieces of legislation. thank you, all, very much. reporter: will you do another sit-in over that? thank you. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> finishing up with house democratic leader nancy pelosi. we did join it in progress because the house was in session this morning. you'd like to see it in its entirety, go to our website c-span.org. members will return this
afternoon for continued debate on an opioid epidemic bill and financial services appropriations. live coverage here on c-span. now, you've seen house democrats on the floor this morning if you were watching as they continued their push for legislation to control guns. members at the end there were reading the names of victims of gun violence while they showed their pictures. this could continue throughout the session today. we will have live coverage, again, this afternoon when the house continues at noon eastern on c-span. here's a look at some of those remarks on gun violence by house members this morning. r. . . speaker, i love my country no one says the pledge of allegiance with greater enthusiasm than i. no one sings "god bless america" with more love for country than i. mr. speaker, i consider it a preeminent privilege to stand
in the well of the congress of the united states of america to address some of the great issues of our time. mr. speaker, the message that i eliver today has been 68 years in the making. the message that i deliver today had its genesis with my i er who cautioned me that must behave a certain way in the presence of the police. . a mother who was concerned for her son, who always made it very clear to me that i had to say yes, sir, and no, sir. and that i had to always accept whatever the police said to me. this message is 68-plus years in the making, mr. speaker. the message is in part based
upon what my uncle who was a deputy sheriff shared with me about my behavior in the presence of the police. , always yieldways to the police, submit to the police, never challenge the police. 68 years in the making, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, my heart is heavy after what has happened over the last two days to black men in the united states of america, my heart is heavy. i had the unfortunate circumstance of seeing what happened to that man in baton rouge, louisiana, on the ground th his hands flailing, blood
flowing from his chest. i heard the young lady this jesus, pleading to god, god don't let him be dead. maybe not her exact words, but very much what she said. don't let him be dead. don't let this happen. mr. speaker, we have to do something about the killing of black men at the hands of the constabulary in this country. if you don't want to investigate the police, if you don't want to investigate the system, the culture that causes it, investigate black men. find out why they want to rupp out in front of bullets. let's find out why they are the ones who are consistently and th some degree of systemic
order forcing themselves upon the police such that they find themselves dead. investigate us. i'm a black man in the united states of america. i have lived what i'm saying. 68 years in the making. that's how long this speech has been made. i don't need a written piece of paper. i know what's going on. was a judge for 26 years. i saw it. i can give firsthand testimony about what's going on. it's time for us to investigate what's happening to black men in this country. black lives do matter. these people are trying to tell us something. these young people. we must listen to them. let us not ignore what's going
on. the camera's eye doesn't lie. if you look at these videos and you use your common sense, you know that there's something going on and we need to investigate t it's pervasive. it's not just one off circumstance that is we're having to contend with. these things are happening across the length and breadth of this country. every venue has some account that can be called to our attention. it's time for us to do something . mr. speaker, i call on you, mr. speaker, you are the speaker of the whole house. mr. speaker, i call on you to assemble the house so that we can address the issue of black men dying at the hands of police in this country. and we ought to investigate it to the extent that we come to conclusions about the people
that are involved in these tragedies. we should not have to have another mother to have her child the car 4 years of age when her boyfriend is killed. mr. speaker, i thank you for the time. and i thank god for giving me 68 years to develop this message. and i pray, mr. speaker, that ou will do something about mr. johnson: thank you, mr. speaker. my topic today was going to be , the issue of gun violence mash shootings, the need for congress to take some action to keep america safe. the fact that 90% of the people of this country want congress to take some action. and i was going to speak about
that today, but i would be remiss as a black man in america to pass up the opportunity to comment about life as a black man in america in an urban setting, particularly, when it comes to police community relations. because we live in a gun culture and nowadays everybody has a gun. some folks have a culture of growing up shooting, hunting, nothing wrong with that. take the kids to the gun show, the family on a saturday afternoon. and at the gun show there is a bunch of unlicensed gun dealers there selling weapons of mass destruction to any and everybody. that's a part of the culture
because everybody wants a gun. well, it's time for universal background checks. that's a simple piece of legislation, closing the gun show loophole which is -- that oophole is bigger than the goodyear blimp traveling sideways. that loophole is so big that you could fit the good year blimp through it sideways and it's worth nothing because unlicensed gun dealers can sell guns to any and everybody. any and everybody can purchase a gun over the internet. o background check required. we need to close that gun show loophole by passing legislation that enforces the notion that there will be universal background checks. i wanted to talk about that today and i still think that's important, but even if we have
universal background checks in this country, there's still a problem for black folks who decide to arm themselves. mean we had the case of fhilando can steal -- philando n steal -- castile, pulled over for a busted tail light. he's a working man in the car with his girlfriend and her 4-year-old daughter and he's armed as everyone else in america is, but he's a black man riding in the streets of a city in america. so he must not be allowed to have that gun or at least if he has one, everybody's in such fear that they develop a trigger finger. when he reaches for his license, then he gets blasted four times
and his life is snuffed out. that's what happens to black folks in america. find out that the man has a valid license to carry that firearm. in many states now, due to what the n.r.a. lobby has done, you don't even need a license to carry the firearm. in your car. so the man was acting lawfully. he gets blasted. he's no longer with us. the day before alton sterling got a little hustle going on. he's selling c.d.'s at the store, at the corner store. why shouldn't he be allowed to have a weapon? he's got a weapon in his pocket. everybody else has got a weapon in their pocket. no, he's a black guy and so we automatically develop a trigger finger when the police approach. take him down hard, two on one,
throwing him all across the car. you saw the video. if the man had wanted to shoot, he would have pulled the gun out much quicker than when they threw him across the car and had him on the ground pinned to the ground, and he ends up getting shot in the back and in the chest. this is life in america. this is our culture of gun violence. that this congress has allowed to man fest itself in this way -- manifest itself in this way. we shouldn't have to live like this. nobody should have to live like this. people walking around afraid of what their neighbor's going to do to them because they know that he's got a mental problem and he should not have a weapon, but he was able to get it over the internet or through the gun show. unlicensed firearm dealers. so weapons have proliferated
into our far too r: there are many answers than questions regarding the emails of secretary clinton. he said this requires unusual transparency and i completely agree. that is why i have sent a letter to director comey saying he released all the unclassified findings of this investigation. in addition, i sent a letter to the director of national intelligence requesting that he refrain from providing classified briefings to secretary clinton during the campaign. here is why. in director comey's statement on tuesday he said, and i will quote, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances a person who engages in this
activity would face no consequences. to the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. and just this morning he stated there are often very severe consequences for mishandling classified information. so it stands to reason that individuals who are, quote, extremely careless, closed quote, with classified information should be denied further access to this type of information. i want to make an additional point here. the recklessness we have seen from secretary clinton, this sort of cavalier attitude toward accountability and responsibility, it is not confined to one person or one government agency. it goes on every day in this administration. just this morning, two congressional committees released a report dealing how the administration-on-unlawfully spent billions of dollars in obamacare. this was not inadvertent violation. there was a clear concerted
effort to circumvent the law in the constitution. also this week, a commission established by congress released a report that shows that veterans administration still has not changed the way they do business. as a result, too many veterans wait too long for care. and the v.a. face little or no accountability for their failures. these things are going on every day in our government. we in congress have a responsibility to provide oversight and we will fulfill that obligation. in addition, as part of our better way agenda, we have put forward several ideas on how best to restore accountability and reclaim the separation of powers. more urage you to learn by going to better.gov. reporter: the democrats are on the floor reading claims of gun violence victims in the another form of a protest. one, do you think that's an appropriate manner to take over the house floor again?
o, why is the effort the g.o.p. [inaudible] spoirk didn't know about it. i don't think that was -- looking back, i don't think that was appropriate. one of the things that really concerns me with this move is the precedence it sets. we are the oldest democracy in the world. we operate on a constitution and the legislative branch of government where we are supposed to debate our rules and laws civilly. if we break those rules, how can we have civilized democracy? that's point one. point two, you don't get to know people in the other party a lot around here. that's one of the big regrets i have for the way politics works these days. i got to know democrats in my career mostly because of the people i served with on my committees, budget committee and ways and means committee. but where you really get to know democrats the best and
where democrats get to know republicans the best is on the floor of congress. we spent -- you were there. you were in the galry. we spent hours voting every day, every week and that floor is the best place for us to actually get to know each other, to strike up conversations, to strike up friendships, to negotiate, to compromise, to talk, to discuss. this is where bipartisanship actually occurs. it's the only vestige that we have for democrats and republicans to come together, and if we turn the floor of the house of representatives into a partisan war zones, complete with tweeting, periscoping and electronic devices, then we have eviscerated every vestige of bipartisanship. any place or chance for republicans and democrats to actually come together and talk about, to actually get to know each other. you know my mentor is jack kemp and he always used to regret the fact that members of congress don't live in washington anymore. i don't. we live at home in our districts. modern air travel, the rest,
the reason we don't do that. the reason he always regretted that is because we never got to know each other. our kids didn't play on the same basketball teams together. the last place we have where republicans and democrats we have getting to know each other is the floor. if we turn the floor into a partisan war zone, then there's no chance left for any kind of comity or bipartisanship. so i'm very worried about that friend. i know that was a long answer but your question, specifically, we want to get this terrorism legislation right. lots of our members when we posted the bill have given us many suggestions so we're trying to get this legislation right. we're trying to reflect the consensus of our conference so we can bring a bill to the floor that deals with this violence, that deals with terrorism, that deals with these issues and we're not going to rush it. we're going to get it right and that's what we're working on with our members. chad. reporter: you spoke so passionately about the floor and enforcing the rules here. based on what you know of that
and you had a meeting with the parliamentarian and sergeant at arms. what sort of discipline should be there be, censor, reprimand? the speaker: all those things we're considering. reporter: are you considering reprimand? the speaker: every option is on the table. we just have our meeting with the sergeant at arms and parliamentarian who did an exhaustive review, reverend the tape, look at kind of infractions occurred, violations. my big concern is a trend, a bad trend happens where we throw the rule of law out the window, congress doesn't function and there's no hope for bipartisanship ever again. so that is why i want to make sure that we establish the right precedence which is we get back to regular order, we get back to debating policies. there are ways of bringing bills to the floor if you're even in the minority. it's called a discharge petition. there are motion to recommit. there are ways of having congress civilly engaged with
one another even from the minority standpoint. those rules ought to be heeded. yes, i am very worried about the trend and precedence and so we are looking at all options for consequences to make sure that we can get congress working together. reporter: and to be clear here, are you looking at something on -- the speaker: we have not taken any of the options off the table. we just got a number of recommendations from the dis patch authority from congress, from the parliamentarian, from the sergeant at arms. we have the rules committee looking at it. e don't want to do this in a rash, wrong way and we are looking at terrorism legislation. reporter: you just had a meeting with your presumptive nominee. what were your takeaways? you were saying some of the lack of discipline in the campaign. he went on a tantrum at the star of david tweet.
are you uncomfortable with the message? the speaker: i think our members really enjoyed it. this was the first time just about every one of our members had a chance to meet and engage with donald trump. so i thought it was great that he came. i'm glad he accepted our invitation. and we had a very good exchange on just lots of ideas and lots of policy issues. i thought it was a very good meeting. it's very clear he's working on putting together a strong general election campaign. got the convention coming up. what i thought was especially helpful today was our members just got access and got to ask questions and talk about their issues. so i thought it was a very good meeting. reporter: are you more comfortable with him after today? the speaker: yeah. i thought he did a great job engaging with members. reporter: is there a plan for a supplemental bill? the speaker: plan b is the democrats stop their filibuster which is bad and pass zika. all of the money that's been appropriated, only 1/6 of it has been spent so far.
that's the kind of answers we've been trying to get for questions for a couple months now. we passed a very responsible zika bill. it hit the $1.1 billion funding level that was requested. that was supported in the senate. the paid fors are absolutely innocuous. everyone knows that. and the democrats are playing politics with this, including a politically motivated filibuster. they should drop their filibuster and pass the bill. reporter: ben with abc. so donald trump is now standing by the tweet he believe is the -- the speaker: i am not going to comment on this. do you think i'll comment on every tweet? reporter: well, you said it was -- the speaker: no i didn't say it was. i said we shouldn't have things like that in campaigns. i didn't even see the thing when i was commenting on it so i'm just not going to get into the tweet talk. yes. deidre. reporter: ask about your letter to clearp. if the d.n.i. refuses your request to block hillary's access to classified information, will congress take action? and do you feel comfortable
with donald trump handling classified information? the speaker: i am and i don't know if congress has the ability to do that or not because i think the d.n.i. controls it. let me go back for a second. when i came out of the 2012 convention as the vice-presidential nominee, i then got weekly, deeply classified briefings by the c.i.a. and the rest of the intelligence committee. that is part of the transition of government. and so we just are in a week here where the director of the f.b.i. just said that hillary clinton recklessly mishandled sensitive classified information. and even though he didn't recommend prosecution, criminal prosecution, he did say that the appropriate case here is administrative actions. and in three weeks when she comes out of the convention, she is going to get unfettered access to the most sensitive classified information our government has? no way. so i really believe that if we
have someone who is so recklessly mishandled sensitive classified information, the kind of get as speaker of the house, because i'm in transition in continuity of government, i think we should think this through. i think the d.n.i. has an obligation, especially given what we just learned from what the f.b.i. has said that she should not get that classified information. reporter: will you honor his decision? the speaker: well, i have to look at the options. i don't even know if we have the ability to change that or not. my guess is we don't. just as the director said, there ought to be consequences. usually there are severe consequences, at least administratively. from my own personal experience, she's about to get the deeply classified sensitive information that our country has and she has just been proven to be dishonest about what she said she did and she's been proven to mishandle it very recklessly. craig. reporter: yeah. were you satisfied with his explanation this morning, donald trump, about his remarks
about saddam hussein? and more generally, do you think he's provided any assurance or reassurance this morning members who had concern about his rhetoric? the speaker: yeah. he put it into context. look, we, who do these things, get taken out of context all the time. i think his point was to put it all into context so people understood the context which he talked about getting tough on terrorism. he used colorful language to do it. >> last question. reporter: was there any discussion today with mr. trump about your better way agenda and was there an endorsement? the speaker: we talked about it quite a bit. most of the members brought up the components of the agenda they feel passionate about. we specifically talked about article 1 of the constitution and the reins act. that's a component of our agenda, our constitutional agenda. so we talked about lots of these issues. we talked about tax reform as well. and so we clearly have a
presumptive nominee who wants to work with us on moving this agenda forward. thank you very much, everybody. appreciate it. >> house speaker paul ryan and his weekly briefing today. we heard from the house minority leader, nancy pelosi, a short time ago. and we're going to hear from you now on gun policy. democrats on the floor of the house earlier today, again, talking about gun violence during morning hour speeches. democrats using much of their show pictures of victims and that continued for a period of time after the house gaveled out of morning hour speeches. and it stopped eventually and democrats then caucused on the floor of the house. we'll have to see in about a little less than 15 minutes
from now when the house comes back in for legislative business. we'll have to see what happens then. but we'd like to get your thoughts. we'll do that in just a moment. we do want to show you the scene from the floor of the house just prior to the time that leadership attempted to gavel out of morning-hour speeches and then we'll take your calls in a moment. the speaker pro tempore: involving members trafficking to the well is a breach of this decorum. pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house until the hour of 12:00 today. >> so that's how it went down a short time ago as democrats after the house gaveled out of morning hour to show pictures of shooting victims and read
names. the house will be back in a little over 10 minutes from now at noon eastern time for legislative business. but in the meantime, we'd like to get your thoughts. members numbers on the screen. democrats call 202-748-8920. if you are a republican, 202-748-8921. independents and all others, 202-748-8922. span.an tweet us @c your thoughts on what you saw earlier on the floor today and what you thought about speaker ryan and nancy pelosi as well. first up is billy joining us on the republican line in mcalister, oklahoma. hi, billy. your thoughts. caller: yes. i don't know what i think about it. i've seen all democrats speaking. i was wondering why republicans aren't defending the rights of the second amendment. host: why do you think? caller: i don't know if they weren't there or they didn't know nothing about it or i
don't know. i was curious that nancy pelosi is all them is trying to take away the second amendment. they should defend this amendment. they swore an oath to defend it and they are trying to take away people's rights. to me that should be an act of terrorism them trying to take away our rights, you know. these gun shootings have all been done by radical islam. they cannot blame something on guns that was done by a religion. you can't do that. host: all right. thanks for the call. to baltimore, maryland, next on the democrats' line. faith joining us. caller: yes. i think it's a gun policy because we had terrorists. we have ex-cons and drug dealers that are purchasing these guns and up here shooting up people. and it's not right as far as i'm concerned because a lot of times -- and innocent children
are being killed by these people. and it's not fair. host: all right, faith. thanks for calling. a reminder to all our callers, turn that tv down so you don't get that echo effect there in the background. jerry joins us now from pacifica, california, on the independents' line. jerry, your thoughts on gun policy and what you've seen today. caller: good morning. i was just really curious on why the emphasis is really on gun control when radical islamic terrorism really trumps that, and it's not just people being killed by guns. they're being killed by bombs as in boston. they're being killed by knives and other means. i don't think they should be taking away our second amendment. host: what do you think about the protest by the democratic members on the floor recently and then today with the reading
of names? caller: well, i thought that first of all for the victims, my deepest sympathy to all of the families and friends of them. but i felt that the democrats looked very foolish and they're fighting for something but they're only fighting for half. they don't just kill with guns, the terrorists. they're also using bombs. they're also using knives and the guns that they're getting are probably illegal guns anyway. what they're fighting for is not even the right type of gun that the guy used. so it's almost like they're talking about doing something but they're really not. i find it really ironic and they look foolish. host: thanks for calling. mitch in ridgely, west virginia, republican caller. go ahead, mitch. caller: yes. the bill that's been drafted by e republicans and the n.r.a.
based on the no fly -- rather, no fly, no buy, i don't see how they can support that when the terrorist list, no-fly list, is made up by the department of homeland security, and that department has scrubbed all references to radical islam or radical muslims from all their documentation. so it looks like to me that republicans should vote against that bill even though they helped to draft it. that's my main point. host: thanks for calling, mitch. we understand at least so far this week the gun legislation that the republicans are planning to bring to the floor is not yet scheduled to come to the floor this week. the rules committee had been expected to take that up this
week. still nothing scheduled by the rules committee to deal with gun legislation. once we know that they're doing that and have something to report to you, of course, we will. take about five more minutes of your phone calls. the house will be coming in at noon eastern time for legislative business today. live coverage, of course, here on c-span. next up is howard in deerfield beach, florida. democratic caller. caller: hello. i believe the second amendment, first of all, it was written when there was no police around, no courts around, there was no police to protect people. they needed guns. today, these amendments, some of them got to be changed. of course, today, you know, we don't need a gun. we have police around. we have courts around. we have lawyers to do our job. i believe they got to have some kind of -- we need guns, we
need drugs and the drug laws are so strict. i think they should run guns like the drug laws. i believe -- host: sorry, howard. cut you off there. thought you finished your comment. lodi, n to alicia from california. caller: good morning. how are you? host: good, thanks. caller: my take on is i don't know if anybody has paid attention over the last 30 years but taking our rights away to have a gun is insane because the criminals know that they're going to attack us because we're defenseless. and when they know there's no consequence, they'll keep on doing it until they know, wait a minute, i better not. it's just insane how they've taken our rights away. host: thanks for calling. camilo in friendswood, texas.
what are your thoughts on gun policy and what you've seen today? caller: well, what i've seen is paul ryan saying we need to get together and, yet what he spills out of his mouth is hate for the democrats and i think really he's nothing but white trash. i wish we just throw him out, throw him out in the sewer. thank you very much. host: a look on your screen, paul ryan, the house speaker talking about among other things continuing to have all options on the table when dealing with the democrats and some of the protests that have occurred in the last couple of weeks and what may be on the table looking ahead. you also heard from minority leader nancy pelosi and now we hear from charles in farmville, north carolina, on the independents' line. charles, your thoughts on gun policy and what the leaders have been talking about today.
caller: well, first of all, i just want to say 49-year-old male here and i'm just appalled at what's going on in our country. i sit back and see the elected officials on both parties, on both sides acting the way they are. first of all, the democrats doing their sit-ins and, you know, all the other shenanigans going on in the house of representatives and then to see the republicans getting up and belittling them and berating them in different ways. i'm just really appalled at our nation and the way we actually turned. i just don't know where we're going to end up at. as a person who voted mainly republican, you know, i'm just -- i'm just at a loss of words for where we're at in america right now. host: to washington state, gaylord with us on the democrats' line. how do you say the name of your
town, gaylord? caller: snoquamie. host: go ahead. caller: my father served in world war ii, proud marine and i am a proud son and i'm a little disgusted about the callers who don't understand that these laws that the democrats want to bring to congress are simply trying to enhance gun laws to stop violence. they are not trying to take gun rights away. if we want to get into the argument of the constitution, that's been talked about by scholarly individuals so that's an issue too. there are way too many callers trying to say we're trying to take gun rights away and that's coming from the n.r.a., not democrats. host: gaylord, what do you think the democrats' methods, the protests that we've seen? caller: i think they should. i think paul ryan's nonsense about them being fined is
traitorous. and i think he should be fined. i think congress has the right to speak to the people of our country, our constituents, and to take that away is traitorous. host: to a republican caller, james in quincy, illinois, now. james, you with us? caller: i am. host: go ahead. caller: yes. i think the whole thing about the guns, the second amendment cannot be clearer in the way it's written. there is no room for debate. the bottom line is our government wants to disarm the american citizens because our government is corrupt and that's their way of controlling and defending their corruptness is to take control of our guns so we cannot do something about it. all of this is all dancing around about rules about guns. the rule meaning is they want to disarm the american
citizens. host: thanks for calling, josh -- rather, james, calling there. looks like the house of representatives about to come back in for legislative business. so we'll watch that now and thanks for all your phone calls. thspet hse will inorde prer ll be fered o chaplai fatconroy. aplainus pra rfu,e ve yo r givi us anr da every dk is done thi hill that is budig toward leislationntprovth lives of americans and guarantee a future of hope for our children.